What's new
By:

Occupy Wall Street

  • Thread starter Thread starter Agoxlea
  • Start date Start date
LogGrad98 said:
They are not standing, they are sitting. In my opinion the police were not claiming it was a violent protest. There are laws governing protests, even peaceful demonstrations. One of them states that you cannot impeded pedestrians or traffic in the course of the protest. It looked to me that police were trying to get them to clear the walkway, as would be required by law. You fall into the same logical fallacy (is it confirmation bias? I forget), that as long as the protest is "valid" and "peaceful" it is automatically "legal". That is not necessarily the case.

It strikes me that pepper spray would be preferable to nightsticks or stun guns. Don't you think so? They are not equal in force. Pepper spray would be used first to disperse the protesters illegally blocking a public walkway. If that doesn't work, then they resort to other methods to enforce the law. Again, what makes the laws invalid? If you disagree with the law or agree with the protesters then the law is wrong? Also, what method should the police have used to get them to move other than pepper spray?

Not much of what they did actually looked all that brutal actually. If that is your idea of police brutality then I am not sure how the police would ever be able to enforce any laws at all when perpetrators resist.

https://pittnews.com/newsstory/laws-govern-restrict-peaceful-protests/



https://www.propublica.org/article/...-the-state-restrict-a-peaceful-protest/single
Click to expand...

I am particularly indignant about police or any government authorities using chemicals on humans. Or water hoses, or water boards, or bamboo shavings, or shock-and-awe armaments. Public policies that require such methods are inherently flawed. I get peeved when no-knock search warrants result in property damage landlords have to repair out of their own pockets. I think the whole freakshow of SWAT team operations is nonsense. Government is just getting inhumane.

Oh, I notice you responded to me while I was editing, adding more to the fire. Well, it's a good thing we can have a place like this to exchange views, isn't it.
 
Last edited:
LogGrad98 said:
That is fine, you and every american have the right to disagree. But do you have the right to dictate which laws the police are supposed to enforce? I thought that was up to the supreme court. Do you think that protesters should be allowed to block whatever they want whenever they want regardless of the circumstances? Or does it depend on who is protesting what? That is why there are laws that govern those circumstances. The police need to follow some guideline. Otherwise, how do they enforce anything?

And these issues have come before the supreme court and have had an impact on the way the police plan for this type of thing, so it isn't like it has never been considered by the supreme court, or that the laws were drawn up in a vaccuum.

I am sure more will surface about this particular incident over the next weeks. It will be interesting to read details of the situation and see how it plays out in court. At this point I have a hard time saying if the force the police used (pepper spray) was extreme or not. Again, to me pepper spray seems like a first line of force or low level of force considering the other tools at the officer's disposal (night stick, taser, fists, gun, etc.)

It is interesting though how many people think that just because someone is protesting they are automatically within their rights no matter what they do, as long as they don't get "violent".

I wonder, would those of you being so vocal about automatically condemning the police be exactly so vocal in exactly the same way if you disagreed with the protest itself?
Click to expand...

As a matter of fact, I happen to hate seeing my favorite issues co-opted by a mob led by paid agitators who are so repugnant to common sensibilities that they make it hard for me to make the case on Constitutional grounds that our political system is corrupted by the big money.

I see otherwise decent and intelligent folks repulsed by these mobs and clamoring for even more police-state jackbooted thugs who will then deploy against me chatting on the internet, or carrying a sign on a sidewalk. You should think it through with less smug self-assurance that our fine public managers are only doing their duty to sweep the streets of people we don't like. I believe that it is exactly this sort of public law, policy, and enforcement that constitutes impairment of human rights by the most rightly-feared tyrants of all---- the majority.
 
I'm not a big fan of OWS. Get a job! I mean, quit laying on the lawn and work for your living like the rest of us! Whining won't solve your problems, getting a job and working a 9-5 will, especially being given the very things you're fighting against! Maybe then you'll find out that those things matter, but are hard to get, so why even try.

- Craig
 
bat said:
Reminds me of this.

no-message-occupy-wall-street.png


Guess which one you are!
Click to expand...

So can you answer my question then? I am asking because the media sure hasn't enlightened me. And the question isn't why, it is what they hope to accomplish.
 
Gameface said:
So can you answer my question then? I am asking because the media sure hasn't enlightened me. And the question isn't why, it is what they hope to accomplish.
Click to expand...

What worries me about the OWS folks is I think it sounds like they don't understand that the remedy to all the ills they see is a return to principled adherence to the Constitution as it was intended by our founders. . . . by putting statesmen in office who understand the importance of integrity to our system.

There was no intention to empower courts to legislate or re-interpret the laws or underlying Constitution. The legislature had significant power to limit the Supreme Court and in fact to determine the scope of jurisdiction of all federal courts. The President did not have the power to legislate by "executive order", there was no provision for various "agencies" to make rules or hold administrative courts or send out cops to enforce their bureaucratic policies. And even the Legislative power was supposed to be restricted by Presidents who might veto a law, and a Supreme Court that could limit the powers of both the Executive and Legislative. The whole system was designed to limit the accumulation or concentration of power. But that has broken down because it has developed into a culture of crooks who all are making huge power grabs, and nobody is standing against it.

That is why we have bankers owning the Fed and cartelists writing the legislation that affects them to ensure their market share, or even a share of the tax receipts. The politicians have been corrupted by the lobbyists/money and nobody is looking out for us.

But the OWS folks seem to be talking about a govenment by the 99, for the 99. . . . mobocracy. And that's no improvement.
 
babe said:
As a matter of fact, I happen to hate seeing my favorite issues co-opted by a mob led by paid agitators who are so repugnant to common sensibilities that they make it hard for me to make the case on Constitutional grounds that our political system is corrupted by the big money.

I see otherwise decent and intelligent folks repulsed by these mobs and clamoring for even more police-state jackbooted thugs who will then deploy against me chatting on the internet, or carrying a sign on a sidewalk. You should think it through with less smug self-assurance that our fine public managers are only doing their duty to sweep the streets of people we don't like. I believe that it is exactly this sort of public law, policy, and enforcement that constitutes impairment of human rights by the most rightly-feared tyrants of all---- the majority.
Click to expand...

Cute rhetoric that said nothing.

Do you think protesters should be allowed to be as disruptive as they choose or should there be laws governing what they are allowed to do in disrupting the lives of others (blocking public walkways, drives, streets, buildings, etc.)? If there should be laws governing this, how do you suggest these jack-booted thugs (nice stereotype there by the way) should enforce those laws? Is enforcing our laws always equal to "sweeping the streets of people we don't like" or is it ever valid to enforce the laws of our society? Or does it depend on whether babe agrees with it or not?

Also, nice attempt at a straw man. If you want to draw parallels between police performing their duties per the laws that govern our society and "jack-booted thugs" chasing you down on the internet (no idea where that came from, hence, straw man) that is your choice. It has absolutely no bearing on this discussion or the issue of these police officers using pepper spray on this group of protesters, but you can surely make that comparison if you so choose.
 
babe said:
What worries me about the OWS folks is I think it sounds like they don't understand that the remedy to all the ills they see is a return to principled adherence to the Constitution as it was intended by our founders. . . . by putting statesmen in office who understand the importance of integrity to our system.

There was no intention to empower courts to legislate or re-interpret the laws or underlying Constitution. The legislature had significant power to limit the Supreme Court and in fact to determine the scope of jurisdiction of all federal courts. The President did not have the power to legislate by "executive order", there was no provision for various "agencies" to make rules or hold administrative courts or send out cops to enforce their bureaucratic policies. And even the Legislative power was supposed to be restricted by Presidents who might veto a law, and a Supreme Court that could limit the powers of both the Executive and Legislative. The whole system was designed to limit the accumulation or concentration of power. But that has broken down because it has developed into a culture of crooks who all are making huge power grabs, and nobody is standing against it.

That is why we have bankers owning the Fed and cartelists writing the legislation that affects them to ensure their market share, or even a share of the tax receipts. The politicians have been corrupted by the lobbyists/money and nobody is looking out for us.

But the OWS folks seem to be talking about a govenment by the 99, for the 99. . . . mobocracy. And that's no improvement.
Click to expand...

I agree with that assessment, and I think that is exactly what GF is getting at. Their message and objectives are so muddled it has devolved into just that, a mob approach rather than a protest with something to accomplish. And flaunting reasonable laws regarding assembly on private property and public ingress and egress to public places just pisses people off, causes the police to get involved needlessly and it does nothing to make their point.
 
Craig K. Manscill said:
I'm not a big fan of OWS. Get a job! I mean, quit laying on the lawn and work for your living like the rest of us! Whining won't solve your problems, getting a job and working a 9-5 will, especially being given the very things you're fighting against! Maybe then you'll find out that those things matter, but are hard to get, so why even try.

- Craig
Click to expand...

Lots of them have jobs. And how will working 9 to 5 help this country out if the haves are not hiring the have nots. Plus, you are old get out of you job that you are holding onto we don't need the grandpas keeping all the jobs from the youth. You voted for and sat back and watched these atrocities and I bet now you are calling for a balance budget and rising the age of retirement for everyone after you.
 
That is a very good shot by that photographer. A split second later and I am sure her head moves and mouth closes. Could be a screen cap from video I guess. Still, crazy shot.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top